Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 1 - Wikipedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Partisan sources (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Third-party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Partisan sources with Template:Third-party.
The problem with partisan sources is that they are not independent of the subject, but not bias (as WP:BIASED does not prohibit sources with an agenda). And what's the difference between a clear and a pronounced agenda? wumbolo ^^^ 23:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Any outcome is acceptable to me. I wonder whether User:JzG's original point might have been more "biased" than "non-independent", though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge although nothing needs to be added to the third party tag in my view, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or just keep the Third-party one as is. No strong opinion on which, although I prefer the phrasing on the latter, and I think there's no need to expand or amend it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A partisan source can be a self-published source, but a self-published source is not always partisan, so I'm not following this. E.g., I spotted {{Third-party}} at the article Inside Out: A Personal History of Pink Floyd. It's place there is questionable, but anyway, that's how I found this nom. It would make more sense to merge {{Third-party}} with {{POV}}. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. These are two separate problems. On Sober Reflection (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As On Sober Reflection points out, these are two different problems. There's a degree of overlap, but they are distinct enough that they merit separate handling.

The partisan source flag relates only to the issue of bias, and whether that source can be reliable with respect to the subject of the article, or at least of the material being discussed in that portion of the article.

The third-party flag can relate to bias, but it can also point up where some material appears is not published other than by the subject of the article. That's material not only to bias, but also to whether the material in question is even worth noting, if no unaffiliated source has bothered to report on it. You can consider that a species of bias, I suppose, but I see it as distinct, with flavors of both bias and notability.

If a source is marked as "partisan", it brings into mind whether the source can be trusted; if the source is marked as non-third-party, it brings to mind whether the material is worthy of inclusion, even if trusted. TJRC (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).